Saltpetre

Communism assumes equality. My proposition is capitalism that recognizes there are limits and social responsibility. Your right the unions would not like it because it’s not communism!

Yes it is against the mindset of the have’s, I’m alright mate, everyone for themselves and stuff everybody else. It’s called change, so what?

I said in my third post of the thread:

Communism assumes there is equality. Capitalism inflates entitlement.
The best incentive for work is to take away the incentive if there is no work.
We need a system that rewards productive pursuits over parasite ones.
We need to reward the farmer more than the politician.
We need to contain expenditure within productivity.
We need a system that is fair, more proportional.
Everyone on the dole is not a bludger.
Everyone bludger is not on the dole.
A bludger not on the dole cost us significantly more.

If the human’s species continues to evolve as it is today it will destroy itself and the planet as we know it.

You don’t get any more unsound than that.

Saltpetre, much of the problem stems from the parents, as they fail to realize there is more to having children than just watching them grow up.

I'm sure if a law were passed that children who fail to attend school, or just plain ignore the education on offer, were the finacial responsibility of the parents, things would change.

But, then we have the do-gooders who have all but removed any real form of discipline, both at home and school.

In short, unmotivated kids of today are a product of their upbringing, or society, or perhaps a combination of both but, ultimately they are the responsibility of the parents, not the tax payer.

Hopefully these new laws, if introduced, will see more parents sit up and take note when it comes to getting the most out of the education system on offer, it may also inspire students to want to achieve, and not simply except a life on welfare, as many do today.

Welfare must become knows as a 'hand up' not a 'hand out'. So perhaps the real dole bludgers have actually done society a favor and push too hard for too long, which has resulted in a government taking real action. Of cause that's yet to be proven.

Producer says "Has been – If I was to stop thinking about worn out clichés, I wouldn’t be able to think about you!

I’m happy to spar with you on the big stage, not the side show."

A total admission that they no answer, & so waffle

Rehctub

A good post.
It blows my mind that women have children and immediately when they are only a few months old, put them in to day care. From the start of their lives these kids are cared for by strangers for what?
Mother to go back to work to help pay for the family's [often 4x2 with 2 cars] lifestyle. It's like having a dog, and leaving it alone at home all day, then coming back from work to spend an hour playing with it.

Children and pets - maybe we should class both as just more toys for adults?

rechtub, I think you are missing out on the significant role government plays in undermining parents ability to set and maintain boundaries for children, especially teenagers.

My impression is to much coverage of rights in the school system and inadequate coverage of responsibity.

An inability for the police to support a parent if a child finds other alternatives to rules at home they don't like. An older teenager can choose to go elsewhere if someone else is willing to be a party to that and the parent is left with no options that I've been able to identify to fix that.

A disfunctional child suppor system that in some situations makes child residency a make or break thing financially for parents on top of an already difficult situation.

Sometimes parents have to ride out the storm as best they can and try to maintain some kind of relationship with the child in the hope that they can be there if the child grows up enough to start making better choices.

I get very tired of pollies blaming parents while the government is a significant contributer to the issues facing parents.

R0bert

worldwatcher,

"It blows my mind that women have children and immediately when they are only a few months old, put them in to day care. From the start of their lives these kids are cared for by strangers for what?
Mother to go back to work to help pay for the family's [often 4x2 with 2 cars] lifestyle. It's like having a dog, and leaving it alone at home all day, then coming back from work to spend an hour playing with it."

I happen to agree with that.

However, our whole society structure in contemporary capitalist Australia is based on consuming.

Parents are encouraged as a matter of course to do exactly that in modern Australia...and indeed most Western Industrial nations.

These days a woman almost has to excuse herself if she's a "stay-at-home" mum.

It's certainly not a "left" or "right" thing...it's a symptom of our consumer society...where if Mrs A pays Mrs B to look after her child then GDP increases. If Mrs A looks after her own child, GDP stays the same.

The institutionalisation of the country is the result where if you're not in the "workplace", you're in some kind of instututionalised care...ergo infants, children and the elderly.